Trix WilkinsDefinitely not the only one - but Laurie should've either waited a bit longer before asking Jo to marry him (eg: worked out what he was doing with his…moreDefinitely not the only one - but Laurie should've either waited a bit longer before asking Jo to marry him (eg: worked out what he was doing with his life first, what he was doing after college. All we know is that he doesn't want to take up his grandfather's), or after she rejected him the first time, really courted her and asked her again (eg: Fitzwilliam Darcy). I think there was a lot of potential for them to have grown as people together, to have matured and to have spurred each other in their respective passions - she loves writing, he loves music - and it was a shame that wasn't explored in the book.(less)

Community Reviews

Someone I know claimed this no longer has value, that she would never recommend it because it's saccharine, has a religious agenda, and sends a bad message to girls that they should all be little domestic homebodies. I say she's wrong on all counts. This is high on my reread list along with Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, and a Tree Grows in Brooklyn--you could say that I'm pretty familiar with it.

Let's see--there's a heroine who not only writes, but is proud of the fact and makes a profit fromSomeone I know claimed this no longer has value, that she would never recommend it because it's saccharine, has a religious agenda, and sends a bad message to girls that they should all be little domestic homebodies. I say she's wrong on all counts. This is high on my reread list along with Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, and a Tree Grows in Brooklyn--you could say that I'm pretty familiar with it.

Let's see--there's a heroine who not only writes, but is proud of the fact and makes a profit from it in a time that this was somewhat out-of-the-ordinary. Reading this, and especially knowing later that the main character is (for all practical purposes) Alcott herself, inspired me to write myself, and I haven't forgotten the writing lessons even today: don't let money cloud your vision, write for yourself first, take criticism, write what you know. Still wise even today. Also in this book, we see the perspective of a family coping with the financial and emotional strain of having a loved one away at war, something that is unfortunately all too relatable today. There's also (extraordinary in those times, common in ours)a platonic, though not uncomplicated, friendship between a man and a woman that is sort of a different kind of love story in a way and a powerful one at that. We see people getting married, but marriage is never portrayed as The Answer to Everything--many of the matches involve sacrifice and struggling. The girls, though good at heart, aren't a picture-perfect family of saints. They're flawed and human. The paragon Beth would seem the exception, but the message with her is more about how even the quietest among us can make an impact on the world--not parading her isolated life as an example, only her kindness.

I won't lie. Someone dies, there's a war and a father's away--so yes, God is mentioned: I think there's a few Pilgrim's Progress references in passing and there's some talk of faith at moments when the characters most need it. To contemporary readers, this may seem like a lot, but heavy-handed it is not. It was probably somewhat unusual for its time. The thought that everyone's relationship and perception of God could greatly vary, and that to be true to your religion was entirely non judgmental and meant being kind to other people and trying to make yourself better, not other people? The thought that each person must be allowed to deal with these feelings in their own time in their own way? Wacky stuff.

I admit it seems like a tough sell to today's kids, packaged in somewhat formal sounding-language, and bearing every indication of being literary broccoli, but this book is a classic for a reason. It might be a tough sell, but I don't think we should give up on trying to think of ways to do it anyway. What's inside still counts. Don't write it off....more

Yes, yes. I'm a grown ass man reading this, but I'm not ashamed. I also read the "Twilight" sa-ha-ha-ga & a bunch of Charlaine Harris as well, remember? Some rules simply don't apply.

What I tried to do here was dispel the extra melodrama and embrace the cut-outs (fat trimmed out) of the Winona Ryder film. I was on the hunt for all the "new" (ha!) stuff that the regular person, well informed of the plot involving four young girls growing up (or in the case of Beth, not) never even knew existeYes, yes. I'm a grown ass man reading this, but I'm not ashamed. I also read the "Twilight" sa-ha-ha-ga & a bunch of Charlaine Harris as well, remember? Some rules simply don't apply.

What I tried to do here was dispel the extra melodrama and embrace the cut-outs (fat trimmed out) of the Winona Ryder film. I was on the hunt for all the "new" (ha!) stuff that the regular person, well informed of the plot involving four young girls growing up (or in the case of Beth, not) never even knew existed. But it seems that the film did a great job not adding many more scenes than direly needed (like the Byrne-Ryder night at the opera scene-- it explains why she didn't choose Laurie after all) nor taking indispensable scenes from the century-&-a-half old novel to the cutting room floor. Alas, there is a good reason why Entertainment Weekly once decreed that the film was a great comfort to all post-911 victims. The story has no great battles to speak of... no violence, no terrible disasters. The minutiae is symbolic of fragile domestic existences... important and very fun to read about--this coming from a Bridget and Carrie Bradshaw fan of course. "Little Women" is at its core all about Old School American values, such as temperance, forgiveness, hard work. It has astute lessons aplenty--to rival even old Aesopus himself. Laurie and Amy have the best lines, and there are plenty of groans amidst cute vignettes and harsh but necessary life lessons--for Americans and non alike. This is relevant today, more so than "On the Road" or other so called quintessential American classics--& that's a genuine PLUS.

This one stands as outstanding soap opera theatrics woven intelligently with American history herself. Good stuff, like a wise mentor of American Lit would say. Also, mega appropriate for the season!...more

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I hated this book.

I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I dislike this novel. It's dull and preachy through out most of it--aside from Jo who is a truly inspired character. But everyone else seems one note, most of the chapters come off as morality plays than solid scenes or plots. And just when Miss Alcott has something seemingly interesting she breaks it for no other reason than to do something.

Whether its the pairing of Amy and Laurie (huh?), the point made CONSTANTLY that Beth's lifeI hated this book.

I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I dislike this novel. It's dull and preachy through out most of it--aside from Jo who is a truly inspired character. But everyone else seems one note, most of the chapters come off as morality plays than solid scenes or plots. And just when Miss Alcott has something seemingly interesting she breaks it for no other reason than to do something.

Whether its the pairing of Amy and Laurie (huh?), the point made CONSTANTLY that Beth's life isn't useless because she is an angel and showed them that angels do exist and is a total Mary Sue(Really? Cause I'm glad she died before I died of boredom), the forced pairing of Jo and the Professor (Why? I mean--really... Just keep her single) there is also the message that pursing art is selfish. (Jo giving up her writing, Laurie gives up his music, Amy gives up her sketching...)

It's not a message I expected--this book is always lauded as one that has inspired countless girls... To do what? Because outside of Jo's sipirt I dont really see much to aspire to in this tsory? The overall message seems to be that as a good Christian one should sacrifice being an artist, being in love with who you want and any hope of independence...

It's not because I'm from the modern era that I dislike this book. (Or that I'm an adult reading it.) If you look at other works being done in the same time period you will see that there were stories with less moralizing being done--including by Miss Alcott herself. I was just really disappointed ...more

"Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents, grumbled Jo, lying on the rug.

It's so dreadful to be poor! sighed Meg, looking down at her old dress.

I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls nothing at all, added little Amy, with an injured sniff.

We've got Father and Mother, and each other, said Beth contentedly from her corner."

There's an undercurrent of anger in this book and I think Louisa May Alcott would have gone much furtheThe book begins:

"Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents, grumbled Jo, lying on the rug.

It's so dreadful to be poor! sighed Meg, looking down at her old dress.

I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls nothing at all, added little Amy, with an injured sniff.

We've got Father and Mother, and each other, said Beth contentedly from her corner."

There's an undercurrent of anger in this book and I think Louisa May Alcott would have gone much further with it if her publisher had allowed it and if it weren't a children's book.

Louisa herself was fiercely independent and didn't marry. Of course, Jo, her doppelganger and the heroine of the book, did marry. I think the struggle for girls and women to be themselves while following convention is an experience that resonates today. I also think that, ironically, when people today want to return to the simple life, they all forget that there was no simple life. Although youngest sister Amy carries her books to school, writes with an inkwell and fights over pickled limes, her father is fighting a real war fought for ideology and national unity. Martha Stewart has us searching for the "good things" and harkening back to garden bounties but nineteenth century girls and women were nearly bound to the home.

Young boys and girls might find the domesticity in the book offputting but it was necessary for people to have domestic skills or they could not survive. The working poor in the 1860s, like the working poor today, could not afford maids. Louisa May Alcott's family occasionally made money from making and mending clothing just to get by. I think there was just as much screaming as crying going on in the Alcott household, but Louisa tones things down for the March family.

The March family and the sisters made me yearn for my own sisters which never materialized. I also realized that wanting to draw, paint, play music, perform plays and write were interests that I shared with people of another time period. The book itself was written after the Civil War and has a purposeful nostalgic tone.

Jo scribbles in the attic and relishes the time she has to write but she is expected to work as a caretaker for her elderly aunt. None of these girls are independently wealthy and the poverty that Alcott writes about in the book mirrors the poverty of her own life but she softens the reality for her fiction. Alcott's father Amos Bronson Alcott was not a soldier, yet he was often away from home. He was a dynamic lecturer and a revolutionary educator who was disillusioned by public reaction to some of his innovations and was often jobless.

While a good portion of white northerners were against slavery and wanted more rights for black Americans, they did not go as far as the Alcotts did in their support. I wish that she had written more about their anti-slavery positions. It's also not widely known that Bronson Alcott was shunned for educating black students.

Reading Little Women in fourth grade caused me to work as a historical interpreter at the Orchard House for six years many years later. I visited Fruitlands, the Old Manse, the Wayside and the House of the Seven Gables. I studied transcendentalism and learned about the contributions of Elizabeth Peabody and other great female intellectuals of the nineteenth century. I was forever changed after reading the book and I've reread it too many times to count.

Louisa was a master marketer akin to J.K. Rowling. She also had a strong survival instinct like Rowling. She desperately needed to make money and writing was her one marketable skill. Notably, she was able to write the book under her own name and not use a gender neutral pseudonym.

The book is written for a younger audience and older readers reading it for the first time might not feel a connection with the book because all Victorian children's books were infused with a heavy dose of morality. Girls especially have always been told to endure hardships while remaining happy. My grandmother Ethel, who grew up in the 1930s, told me her mother said to her: "It's easy to be happy when life rolls along like a song. But it's the girl who's worthwhile who will smile when everything goes wrong."...more

My copy of this is probably 55 years old -- I've probably read it at least twenty-five times. One of my all-time favorite books. One of my favorite authors ever. Yes, it is old-fashioned -- it was old-fashioned fifty-five years ago. But that is the point pretty much in my opinion. This is a story of times past, of a family which functioned in a particular way in a particular time. This is also a story of what one person in a family might have wished were so all of the time in the family but wasnMy copy of this is probably 55 years old -- I've probably read it at least twenty-five times. One of my all-time favorite books. One of my favorite authors ever. Yes, it is old-fashioned -- it was old-fashioned fifty-five years ago. But that is the point pretty much in my opinion. This is a story of times past, of a family which functioned in a particular way in a particular time. This is also a story of what one person in a family might have wished were so all of the time in the family but wasn't. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nov 2008/Dec 2008 rereading for the ??th time. Reading my Centennial Edition -- priced at $5.95 in 1968 -- pretty amusing that. I believe I bought this book second hand which surprises me as I thought I'd splurged and bought it the minute it was out -- perhaps in a fit of being good, I'd refrained and later bought this used copy to appease my Little Woman penchant retroactively.

Only 156 pages in and I'm as thoroughly hooked as always. Something peaceful about this story, speaks to me in a very profound manner. A bit of treacle is apparent but the story's truths are also as apparent as ever. ...more

2017 update: I reread this as it was the Austentatious book for June and July! I didn't love it as much as I did the first time I read it, but I am glad I got to revisit the story. (Also, this time I Amy was my favorite character?)

Book 12/100 for 2015I had to read this book for my Children's Lit class and I loved it! We've done a lot of discussion which has really opened my mind to new things in the book and made me love it even more. I'd definitely recommend this book to anyone wanting to get i2017 update: I reread this as it was the Austentatious book for June and July! I didn't love it as much as I did the first time I read it, but I am glad I got to revisit the story. (Also, this time I Amy was my favorite character?)

Book 12/100 for 2015I had to read this book for my Children's Lit class and I loved it! We've done a lot of discussion which has really opened my mind to new things in the book and made me love it even more. I'd definitely recommend this book to anyone wanting to get into classics as it's a children's book (so easy to read) but also there are fantastic characters (except Amy, I really hate Amy)....more

I have read 18 of Louisa May Alcott's books, so I guess I can safely say that I am very familiar with her work. Some of them were very good, some not quite as good. All had that 19th century down home feeling with wonderful, memorable characters. But only one of her novels reached the level of what could be called literary greatness. Somehow, with this simple story, and these adorable characters, with a heart warming and heart wrenching plot, Alcott creates an American classic, her masterpiece.I have read 18 of Louisa May Alcott's books, so I guess I can safely say that I am very familiar with her work. Some of them were very good, some not quite as good. All had that 19th century down home feeling with wonderful, memorable characters. But only one of her novels reached the level of what could be called literary greatness. Somehow, with this simple story, and these adorable characters, with a heart warming and heart wrenching plot, Alcott creates an American classic, her masterpiece. Yes it is dated, but Little Women will always have a place in our hearts, in our homes, and in the World's libraries.

PS: I rewrote this review on 11/29/2016, in honor of her 184th birthday, and my birthday that I share with her, just with a slightly smaller number....more

I'm definitely a victim of modern society when I find this book slow. Had I read it in its day (or even as a youth) it would probably be fantastic, but as it is I'm finding the life lessons saturated in every chapter a little much, not sweet. Which brings me to Beth. Back in the day sweet, mild, submissive were prime female qualities. Now I look at the picture of her on the front cover with her empty eyes and blank stares and she looks sweet in a mentally challenged way. And Jo who is endearingI'm definitely a victim of modern society when I find this book slow. Had I read it in its day (or even as a youth) it would probably be fantastic, but as it is I'm finding the life lessons saturated in every chapter a little much, not sweet. Which brings me to Beth. Back in the day sweet, mild, submissive were prime female qualities. Now I look at the picture of her on the front cover with her empty eyes and blank stares and she looks sweet in a mentally challenged way. And Jo who is endearing because she is quirky, clumsy, and bold while meaning well and therefore not prime marriage material show prime female qualities for today of intelligence, wit, and assertiveness. So you see, the characteristics that are supposed to endear me annoy me and the ones I'm supposed to find sympathy for, I relate to.

I couldn't finish the book. I tried, but it was too much like homework. Plus it bothers me that (view spoiler)[Jo rejects Laurie and that little diva Amy catches him with the shallow characteristics of her looks when he is way too good for her. Maybe I'm tainted with the image of Christian Bale in my head, but I still think Jo would have made such a better companion to him (hide spoiler)]. So I didn't even have motivation to wade through boredom to read a conclusion that upset me. ...more

To me this book is just a big neon highlighted literary exclamation mark defining how incredibly different I am from my mother. She loves this book. Really, really loves it....a lot. She always used to tell me how great she thought it was although, as a kid I somehow avoided reading it; mainly because at this point I was too busy dangling from a climbing frame by my ankles or stealing scrap wood from building sites in order to make dens and tree houses.

As it is prominently placed on the 1001 booTo me this book is just a big neon highlighted literary exclamation mark defining how incredibly different I am from my mother. She loves this book. Really, really loves it....a lot. She always used to tell me how great she thought it was although, as a kid I somehow avoided reading it; mainly because at this point I was too busy dangling from a climbing frame by my ankles or stealing scrap wood from building sites in order to make dens and tree houses.

As it is prominently placed on the 1001 books list I thought, "What the hell I'll give it a go". Man oh man what an epic snooze fest. Less than twenty pages in I could feel my mind slowly shutting down. Was it through boredom? Or was I entering a diabetic coma because of the saccharine overload created by the sickly sweet world of Margaret, Jo, Beth and Amy? Anyway to avoid succumbing to said coma I threw the book as far away from me as I could and then chucked a blanket over it to ensure that I wouldn't be effected by the mind numbing dullness being exuded from between the covers.

I know that I risk howls of outrage at this lambasting of a much loved classic but this ticked no boxes for me. I am clearly dead inside....more

When I was 11 years old, I used to watch its anime show on a channel, that time I didn't know its name. I was merely interested in the show.

But thankfully, I remembered the names of the characters so that when I was in my higher secondary school, I saw this book in school library with the picture of four girls and their Mommy. I suddenly remembered the show.

Since that day I wanted to read Little Women.

When the librarian said that this book cannot be issued, I wasn't worried. I would to go to lWhen I was 11 years old, I used to watch its anime show on a channel, that time I didn't know its name. I was merely interested in the show.

But thankfully, I remembered the names of the characters so that when I was in my higher secondary school, I saw this book in school library with the picture of four girls and their Mommy. I suddenly remembered the show.

Since that day I wanted to read Little Women.

When the librarian said that this book cannot be issued, I wasn't worried. I would to go to library and stare at this book through the glass self.

Understanding Jo, Meg, Beth and Amy is an experience in itself.

Having read Little Women is so precious a feeling for me, that words fail to explain.

The one thing I'm not going to do is apologise for not liking this. I hold no truck with that: stop apologising for having an opinion that is different to the majority.

Little Women was relatively written well in the grammatically correct sense, but I found it to be a very slow and dull read. It is definitely of its time and even though there are small points of seeing the necessity of having strong,Read as part of The Infinite Variety Reading Challenge, based on the BBC's Big Read Poll of 2003.

The one thing I'm not going to do is apologise for not liking this. I hold no truck with that: stop apologising for having an opinion that is different to the majority.

Little Women was relatively written well in the grammatically correct sense, but I found it to be a very slow and dull read. It is definitely of its time and even though there are small points of seeing the necessity of having strong, independent female characters, inevitably they always end up having to rely on men or indeed other women in order to survive within the narrative.

There was no clear and concise plot, just a bunch of little stories that all fit together in a relevant manner, but altogether it was pretty much a huge heap of Nothing Happened. I liked the differences of the sisters, but found their outward appearance-differences rather far-fetched and they didn't seem to look like sisters in my mind, nor did their personalities really shine through as being particularly familial. In fact, it felt more as if they were just friends and not sisters and I didn't see any of the sibling love as anything but friendship. I also didn't like how they were very different to each other, as if none of them shared even one particular trait, or indeed any similar hobby or desire.

I think it'd be fair to say that this is a definite children's tale, though perhaps quite the preachy kind. I disagree it's one you can only really enjoy if you read it as a child, however, because there are plenty of children's books that are just as enjoyable for the first time as an adult. Little Women had never actually struck me as a book to ever be read anyway, and it was mostly just a get-it-out-of-the-way kind of read.

Little Women remains to this day one of the books I have, curiously, read the most. And I'm not ashamed to state this. Why should I be? The notion that certain films or books are 'chick-lit' is one so alien to my mind. They may be geared at specific audiences mostly, but any strong work of art will appeal to any individual - or rather can appeal to any individual - person.

I don't know what it is about Little Women that made me so attracted to it. Perhaps it was the characterisation in the womenLittle Women remains to this day one of the books I have, curiously, read the most. And I'm not ashamed to state this. Why should I be? The notion that certain films or books are 'chick-lit' is one so alien to my mind. They may be geared at specific audiences mostly, but any strong work of art will appeal to any individual - or rather can appeal to any individual - person.

I don't know what it is about Little Women that made me so attracted to it. Perhaps it was the characterisation in the women in the book at the age of ten. Maybe something in my childish mind told me that independent and restrained elegance in female characters was something to be admired when it could be created in fiction - when I say restrained elegance I mean the wisdom of modesty. Something about the girls - Jo, Meg, Beth and Amy - appealed to me, something told me that they were well crafted characters.

Who can explain why any fictional book touches anyone? Who can define how we class things such as quality or beauty? It seems to be something subconscious, something picked up both culturally and individually. To me, Little Women was, and because of fond memories still is, a work of pure art. It has its rough patches no doubt but it kept drawing me back in with the tales of women discovering their paths in life and ultimately a romance. Some might find this an overly sympathetic or sappy book. I'm not here to say it isn't. But it touched me in a particular way and that is what I'm hear to state. Think of me as someone who has had an experience with a novel - for it is the nature of humanity to aim to share experience.

I'll always describe myself as a romantic at heart, in the sense that I'm an idealist, that I hold to ideals and to the belief that people can be better. Age and time have perhaps developed me into more of a cynical idealist but a part of me is strongly romantic deep down. It is the poetic side of me, the writer side of me, the side that wants to break free of conventions and try to find the words to explain what I so clumsily cannot. It is that part of me that was awakened by such literature as this - I must admit that delving into something like Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret might have stunted such development however.

Somewhere in a distant time a copy of Little Women floats. It has paper browned through the constant touching of grubby little fingers; pages crumpled and worn with regular turning (or heaven forbid - leaving it with the spine open on a chair); and there are unidentifiable food stains on several pages. It may not have been the greatest of copies, certainly nothing extraordinary about it, but it was my copy. And it was a copy well loved. And it was the extra love that added an aura of romance and a boundless love to it. And it is to this image, lost in the vortex of space and time, that I return to when I think of this novel....more

So in keeping with my recent attempts to write reviews for all my five star reads here's one for my absolute favourite book from my childhood, Little Women.

This was the first hardback I ever read that had no pictures or any such things to tempt a child. I remember feeling quite grown up when I first read it as it was just a plain old red book that had lost its dust jacket many years previously. Nothing bright or colourful that would have tempted me in the years previous. I suppose I must have beSo in keeping with my recent attempts to write reviews for all my five star reads here's one for my absolute favourite book from my childhood, Little Women.

This was the first hardback I ever read that had no pictures or any such things to tempt a child. I remember feeling quite grown up when I first read it as it was just a plain old red book that had lost its dust jacket many years previously. Nothing bright or colourful that would have tempted me in the years previous. I suppose I must have been about 8 years old when first I read this.... and fell head over heels in love with everything about Little Women.

I wanted to be Jo March. Heck I still do!!!!!!!! She's one of those literary characters that I would invite to my imaginary dinner party for all time fav fictional characters.

Oh how I wanted to live in her house with all her wonderful sisters. The noise, the joy, the fun...

And I wanted Laurie to live next door to me. I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!!!!! #FirstEverBookBoyfriend

And darling sweet Beth....gaaaaaahhhh much and all as I love Jo (and thought I was Jo in my head as a little kid) I knew there was a lot of Beth in me. That quietness, the love for home life and family, the love for sitting contentedly playing the piano, the less than glowing healthy glow(!!)... Of course she was eminently more patient and kind than I could ever hope to be, and so in many ways Beth was quite the role model to me growing up. It's a bit like how I love Fanny Price from Mansfield Park ...both characters could be construed as being too quiet or pious even but I always loved that about them. I loved that uncomplicated part of their personalities as there is so much to be admired in keeping things simple and just treating everyone with kindness. Jo might be the star of the show with her forthright mind and joie de vivre but Beth should never be discounted!!

I feel inclined to launch into this song right now....Bette Midler??? Wind Beneath My Wings??? BEACHES *wails* Oh that film STILL rips me apart!!!!

*tears up*

BUT I DIGRESS!!!!!!

Oh Jo and Beth and Meg and Amy.......*sigh* and this beautiful book. THIS BOOK!!!!!!!! ASDFGHJKL!!!!!!!!!!!I can't put an exact number on how many times I read it. I'm sure I read it at least five times a year if not more while I was still a child and have continued my rereads long into adulthood. And when, soon after reading Little Women, I discovered the sequel Good Wives in a second hand sale, and then discovered even more sequels with copies of Little Men and Jo's Boys in my local library.... oh you couldn't even begin to imagine how much my happiness could not be contained!

Little Women is the perfect book for young girls to read. There are many life lessons to be found within its pages but above all there is strength of character and heapfuls of childhood joys! I only hope that it'll bring as much happiness and comfort to future readers as it has given to me over the years.

Two years ago, I read the first part of this novel and quite liked it. The March family consists of the most endearing characters, and I had fun reading about the four sisters and their growing up. However, it wasn't until recently that I realized that I had yet to read the second part, which I set out to do. It was so great being back with these sisters and follow them in their future adventures, and I must say that I actually find the second part the strongest. It contains hopes and disappointTwo years ago, I read the first part of this novel and quite liked it. The March family consists of the most endearing characters, and I had fun reading about the four sisters and their growing up. However, it wasn't until recently that I realized that I had yet to read the second part, which I set out to do. It was so great being back with these sisters and follow them in their future adventures, and I must say that I actually find the second part the strongest. It contains hopes and disappointments equally balanced, and it made me long to read even more about the four sisters (which part one didn't necessarily do). This is a beautiful, moralizing story that we can all learn from. It speaks of how the world would be a much better place if we all lives according to Mrs. March's beliefs and education, and it makes for a wonderful story on growing up and being part of a family. ...more

Whilst I do recall reading this as a young child I could remember little about the characters and the story-line so felt I was revisiting both something beloved and viewing it with fresh and excited eyes.

This felt like a series of short stories involving the March sisters, bound into a longer narrative. Whilst each sister is dissimilar in temperament and personality they all share the closest of bonds, and reading of their shared happiness and sorrows made this an altogether adorable reading expWhilst I do recall reading this as a young child I could remember little about the characters and the story-line so felt I was revisiting both something beloved and viewing it with fresh and excited eyes.

This felt like a series of short stories involving the March sisters, bound into a longer narrative. Whilst each sister is dissimilar in temperament and personality they all share the closest of bonds, and reading of their shared happiness and sorrows made this an altogether adorable reading experience. I didn't expect this to be as poignant and whimsical as it was and each of the nostalgic adventures recounted had me feeling like an honorary March sister, so inclusive was the style of writing and the lovable nature of the characters within.

Each of these tales had a moralistic edge that made this suitable for younger readers, but not off-putting to an older or modern-day readership. I whole-heartedly enjoyed this, and the warm, fuzzy feelings it evoked, and am glad I have revisited something so special....more

Now, if she had been the heroine of a moral story-book, she ought at this period of her life to have become quite saintly, renounced the world, and gone about doing good in a mortified bonnet, with tracts in her pocket. But, you see, Jo wasn't a heroine; she was only a struggling human girl, like hundreds of others, and she just acted out her nature, being sad, cross, listless, or energetic, as the mood suggested.

I first read this book as a tween, and had a real love-hateThere will be spoilers.

Now, if she had been the heroine of a moral story-book, she ought at this period of her life to have become quite saintly, renounced the world, and gone about doing good in a mortified bonnet, with tracts in her pocket. But, you see, Jo wasn't a heroine; she was only a struggling human girl, like hundreds of others, and she just acted out her nature, being sad, cross, listless, or energetic, as the mood suggested.

I first read this book as a tween, and had a real love-hate reaction to it, love of the first half, and I pretty much hated the last half. Beth's death made me cry, and I loathed sad books passionately, but most of all I loathed Professor Bhaer, for two reasons. The minor one was that he was ugly and forty, which was utterly disgusting to me, as my grandparents then were in their forties. Euw! But the real reason I felt utterly betrayed by Alcott was because my own limited experience laid a palimpsest over the story, distorting Alcott's meaning. Well, but even if I hadn't been twitted by the well-meaning adults in my life to stop writing silly fairy tales and concentrate on Real Life if I must scribble stories, I could not have taken her meaning, as my lack of life experience was exactly what she was talking about in those scenes.

I read the book again at another period of my life when I probably shouldn't have, as the sorrowful parts overshadowed the rest.

Then I recently reread it, and hey, it was a completely different book from the one I'd read as a kid. Funny, that, how much a text changes over the decades. To me, that is the sign of a great book.

The first thing I noticed was the humorous skill of the narrator, who sometimes, in true nineteenth century fashion, comes right out and talks to the reader, then vanishes again, and lets the characters talk and think for themselves.

I saw this time how skillfully Alcott set up Amy's and Laurie's romance. How splendidly Alcott painted Laurie's and Jo's friendship, and her courage in maintaining that hey, a man and a woman really can be good buddies. Yeah, Laurie goes through some heart-pangs, but he gets over it, and finally gets some emotional growth while being thwarted for the first time in a life of getting pretty much what he wanted all the time. There were occasional falters that showed the author's hand. Like I found it hard to believe that Laurie, as a teenage boy, would moralize quite so much over Meg prinking at her first party. I could totally see him being uncomfortable, but that's a small thing.

As a kid I'd been bored stiff by Amy's and Laurie's courtship, but this time, I loved the images of Europe, and appreciated how skillfully Alcott had brought the two through the years to their shared delights. I found their courtship one of the strengths of the book.

And then there was Professor Bhaer. The scene where he rejoices in Jo's giving up her writing after her humiliation over his opinion of trashy stories that I took as such a betrayal as a teen read utterly differently to me now. What he resented was Jo pandering to the modern taste for sex, violence, and melodrama, especially when she knew so little about sex and violence. Jo was perpetrating cliches, empty calories, because it was easy money, and he thought she could do better.

I had to laugh when I recollected that not so long ago I critiqued a teenage-written manuscript, suggesting that that writing about forty-year-old married people might wait until more was known about what marriage actually meant. What I had taken as a tween (because sex went right over my head) was that Professor Bhaer was anti-fantasy. Wrongo, but I didn't have the life experience to see where he was going about lack of life experience.

As for his being forty, that seems to have been a nineteenth century tic. Hello Mr. Knightley! And not just in fiction--just a couple days ago I was reading Horatio Nelson's dispatches. In winter of 1800 he is smirking about Sir John Acton, well into his sixties, marrying his thirteen year old niece. Smirking, not exclaiming in horror and disgust, the way we would now.

In short, Jo and the Professor's romance took on all the charm that had completely passed me by.

Meanwhile there were all the old scenes I'd remembered so well, still funny, and poignant, and beautiful. Alcott does get preachy, but she's aware of it; at one point, after encouraging young people not to make fun of spinsters, she gets on with the story after wondering if her audience has fallen asleep during her little homily.

These homilies all point toward love as well as acceptance, faith as well as resignation. Caring for one's fellow-being, whether it be a poor person, as the dying Beth made little gifts for poverty-stricken children and dropped them out of the window just to see smiling faces. There is so much beauty in this book, and so much appreciation of beauty, as well as illustration of many shades of love.

It was also interesting to get visual overlays, for last autumn I'd visited Orchard House, where May (Amy) had drawn all over the walls in her room and a couple of other rooms, carefully preserved, where Jo's room was full of books, overlooking the garden; between two tall windows was the writing desk her father had made for her. Beth's piano. You could feel wisps of the love the family had for one another, which Alcott had put into the book, along with her personal struggles to be a better person; she gave her alter ego, Jo, a happier ending than she actually managed to get. (And though she didn't know it at the time, a happier ending for her artist sister May, as well.)

So, this is going to be my most confusing review to date and I am going to need some help from people who read this, so please reply if you know! (see below)

I read this for my Completest Book Club. I am glad I did because it is a classic I hear about all the time. If you take the Never-ending Book Quiz on Goodreads, it seems like every other question is about Little Women. While for me this book was just okay, I can see why it is a classic and enjoyed by many.

MyUpdated 8/26/2016 - Update at end

So, this is going to be my most confusing review to date and I am going to need some help from people who read this, so please reply if you know! (see below)

I read this for my Completest Book Club. I am glad I did because it is a classic I hear about all the time. If you take the Never-ending Book Quiz on Goodreads, it seems like every other question is about Little Women. While for me this book was just okay, I can see why it is a classic and enjoyed by many.

My confusion is this. I am only about 50% of the way through my audio copy of Little Women. As I was posting my status update last night I was noticing some comments that led me to believe I am now in what is considered the second book "Good Wives". My audiobook does not say anything, other than that I am in Part 2. In doing some research, I found that frequently audiobooks combine the first two books. My goal was only to read Little Women, so if I am truly in book 2, I am ready to stop.

See spoiler for details about where I am: (view spoiler)[Meg just got married, and it is my understanding that is how Good Wives starts (hide spoiler)]

Update: So, I did finish part two (Good Wives). It definitely had a different feel. Almost like Little Women was meant to be read by 8 to 12 year olds and Good Wives was meant to be read by 12 to 19 year olds. While my star rating did not change, I did like getting a chance to "finish" the story of the little women. It felt like there was less filler, and that was either because there was, or because I was getting used to the writing and the story.

I probably would have rated this higher if it was the type of book I would normally be into. But, I am glad that I now have this classic under my belt!...more

I was given this more than 30 years ago, and it never appealed, but I gave it a go when it was selected by my book group.

As most people know, it's Louisa May Alcott's semi-autobiographical account of four teenage sisters growing up in slight poverty, while their father is away at war.

The opening words alerted me to the tone: "'Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without any presents'... 'I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls to have nothing at all.'"I was given this more than 30 years ago, and it never appealed, but I gave it a go when it was selected by my book group.

As most people know, it's Louisa May Alcott's semi-autobiographical account of four teenage sisters growing up in slight poverty, while their father is away at war.

The opening words alerted me to the tone: "'Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without any presents'... 'I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls to have nothing at all.'" Despite this, they are virtuous and generous girls (albeit, each has a little quirk: Jo is a tomboy, Amy a bit prim etc). If that doesn't tug at the heart strings enough, it is peppered with sentimentality, such as "Very few letters were written in those hard times that were not touching, especially those which fathers sent home." and "Tell us another story, mother; one with a moral". Too much cheese/saccharine for my taste, so I gave up 1/3 of the way through.

The book is of its time (Victorian), but, perhaps because it was written for young adults, there is a simplicity of language and structure that exacerbates the self-conscious self-righteousness of it. It lacks the depth, breadth and moral grey areas of more adult writers of the time, such as Dickens. That may be an unfair comparison, as he was writing for a different audience, but it nevertheless reflects my reaction.

This book was really good. You know those books that you aren't sure what made them your favorite? this is one of those books but i will try. For one reason the characters were so believable and relate-able. Also their stories weren't so far fetched, since they were based on Louisa May Alcott's time. Each of the sisters personalities were different but still similar enough to seen that they were siblings. This helped me since I have a twin sister and we are both different and similar at the sameThis book was really good. You know those books that you aren't sure what made them your favorite? this is one of those books but i will try. For one reason the characters were so believable and relate-able. Also their stories weren't so far fetched, since they were based on Louisa May Alcott's time. Each of the sisters personalities were different but still similar enough to seen that they were siblings. This helped me since I have a twin sister and we are both different and similar at the same time. For these reasons, everyone should read this amazing classic.

Jo was my favorite character. She was smart and determined to do what she wanted in life despite the problems in her path. She wanted to write so she did and she did find love. She was funny and kind of a tomboy that I think every girl can relate too since we all had a time in our life when we didn't want to follow along and where what all the other girls were wearing.

I was a little surprised at who Jo wanted to be with but I liked that she was happy. I'm also glad that Laurie loved someone else since I did like him too. The ending was nice and I am excited about reading the other books with Jo and her boys....more

I first read this as a young teen, maybe 12 or 13 years old. I loved it then, and, when I learned that Masterpiece Theater was filming this as a mini-series, I decided to assign it for our September meeting.

I was surprised at how sentimental this made me feel while reading. In our modern world, it is surprising to read of Meg and Jo, 16 and 15 years old at the beginning, who are still willing to indulge in make believe and silly games. The younger sisters, Beth and Amy, 13 and 12, are still youI first read this as a young teen, maybe 12 or 13 years old. I loved it then, and, when I learned that Masterpiece Theater was filming this as a mini-series, I decided to assign it for our September meeting.

I was surprised at how sentimental this made me feel while reading. In our modern world, it is surprising to read of Meg and Jo, 16 and 15 years old at the beginning, who are still willing to indulge in make believe and silly games. The younger sisters, Beth and Amy, 13 and 12, are still young enough to play with dolls. The girls argue and tease and play pranks on one another, as sisters do, but they adored and revered their mother and actually asked her advice and tried to make her proud of them, and never talked back! Unrealistic in today's terms, but nice to return to another era, and escape what we seem to have become. I enjoyed this little trip down memory lane, and it will be great to see what Masterpiece Theater has to show us....more

My heart is melting a little as I close this book at long last, my mind contented. It is a sweet book, occasionally a bit too sweet, but there were many places where I felt quite moved. If I’d been 17 when I first read this, I would have been over the moon about it.

It is the story of the four March sisters and their family joys and woes. From the beginning we are meant to see how different they are. The dialogues were so evenly distributed between them it felt unnatural at times, or perhaps faiMy heart is melting a little as I close this book at long last, my mind contented. It is a sweet book, occasionally a bit too sweet, but there were many places where I felt quite moved. If I’d been 17 when I first read this, I would have been over the moon about it.

It is the story of the four March sisters and their family joys and woes. From the beginning we are meant to see how different they are. The dialogues were so evenly distributed between them it felt unnatural at times, or perhaps fairy-tale like, along these lines:

Meg says something sensible and mature

Jo responds with something outlandish or contradictory

Beth says something angelic

Amy says something immature or annoying

(And on occasion Mrs. March sweeps in with a matriarchal, loving word, saving the day).

And thus the girls go about in their domestic happiness, and one great sorrow, and are, as they grow up, taught various moral lessons, which are embedded into the story in a blatantly didactic manner.

Its redeeming trait to me, when it became a bit too sugary and self-righteous, was the gentle irony which I noticed more and more as I read on. Indeed, I felt I spotted the mocking tone of Jane Austen here and there (to the extent that I’m sure Louisa May Alcott has read her), though this novel is more truly romantic than Austen ever was. A few examples:

For a week the amount of virtue in the old house would have supplied the neighborhood. It was really amazing, for everyone seemed in a heavenly frame of mind, and self-denial was all the fashion.

(When Jo sees a writer who’s a bit too fond of his drink:) The great novelist vibrated between two decanters with the regularity of a pendulum.

Having given the rein to her lively fancy, it galloped away with her at a great pace, and common sense being rather weakened by a long course of romance writing, did not come to the rescue.

(…) her elbows were decidedly akimbo at this period of her life (…)

From this small selection of quotes, I see that I was most taken with Jo. One small niggle that I have about the novel, in relation to Jo, is that she is described as the girl who most needs to be domesticated, when in fact I felt her lively, tom-boyish personality to be by far the most interesting of the bunch.

Coincidentally, there was a reference to Little Women in the other novel I was reading at the same time, A God in Ruins. In that novel, one of the characters described Little Women as a novel about strong, resourceful, young women. All the Shorecroft sisters had loved Louisa May Alcott… Apart from it being a lovely, little tribute, I loved the imaginary literary threads of one novel reaching out to another.

I began the novel over Christmas because it has that old-world, cozy glow to it, which reminded me a little of the family idylls of The Little House on the Prarie, though with more deliberate (and delightful) quaintness. Jo’s first meeting with Laurie/Teddy, the boy next door, reminded me of The Secret Garden, another charming book about childhood and lost worlds. The March sisters eventually grow up to be young women, and everything is tied neatly with a pretty pink bow at the end, exactly as it should be in an edifying novel like this. I can see why it has become an enduring classic....more

As A.M. Barnard: Behind a Mask, or a Woman's Power (1866)The Abbot's Ghost, or Maurice Treherne's Temptation (1867)A Long Fatal Love Chase (1866 – first published 1995)First published anonymously:A Modern Mephistopheles (1877)

Louisa May Alcott was born in Germantown, Pennsylvania on November 29, 1832. She and her three sisters, Anna, Elizabeth and May were educated by their father, philosopher/ tAs A.M. Barnard: Behind a Mask, or a Woman's Power (1866)The Abbot's Ghost, or Maurice Treherne's Temptation (1867)A Long Fatal Love Chase (1866 – first published 1995)First published anonymously:A Modern Mephistopheles (1877)

Louisa May Alcott was born in Germantown, Pennsylvania on November 29, 1832. She and her three sisters, Anna, Elizabeth and May were educated by their father, philosopher/ teacher, Bronson Alcott and raised on the practical Christianity of their mother, Abigail May.

Louisa spent her childhood in Boston and in Concord, Massachusetts, where her days were enlightened by visits to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s library, excursions into nature with Henry David Thoreau and theatricals in the barn at Hillside (now Hawthorne’s "Wayside").

Like her character, Jo March in Little Women, young Louisa was a tomboy: "No boy could be my friend till I had beaten him in a race," she claimed, " and no girl if she refused to climb trees, leap fences...."

For Louisa, writing was an early passion. She had a rich imagination and often her stories became melodramas that she and her sisters would act out for friends. Louisa preferred to play the "lurid" parts in these plays, "the villains, ghosts, bandits, and disdainful queens."

At age 15, troubled by the poverty that plagued her family, she vowed: "I will do something by and by. Don’t care what, teach, sew, act, write, anything to help the family; and I’ll be rich and famous and happy before I die, see if I won’t!"

Confronting a society that offered little opportunity to women seeking employment, Louisa determined "...I will make a battering-ram of my head and make my way through this rough and tumble world." Whether as a teacher, seamstress, governess, or household servant, for many years Louisa did any work she could find.

Louisa’s career as an author began with poetry and short stories that appeared in popular magazines. In 1854, when she was 22, her first book Flower Fables was published. A milestone along her literary path was Hospital Sketches (1863) based on the letters she had written home from her post as a nurse in Washington, DC as a nurse during the Civil War.

When Louisa was 35 years old, her publisher Thomas Niles in Boston asked her to write "a book for girls." Little Women was written at Orchard House from May to July 1868. The novel is based on Louisa and her sisters’ coming of age and is set in Civil War New England. Jo March was the first American juvenile heroine to act from her own individuality; a living, breathing person rather than the idealized stereotype then prevalent in children’s fiction.

In all, Louisa published over 30 books and collections of stories. She died on March 6, 1888, only two days after her father, and is buried in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Concord....more